Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Your wife will beat you, she will control you, the world will laugh at your emasculated status, and if you raise a finger or your voice, the world will punish you as one.

Positively hilarious! I can't think of a better idea for a movie (or its cover)! Rented this movie today, haven't watched it yet so I don't know whether I'm accurate in judging the book by its cover, but I can guarantee that there has not been a single non-agenda movie that has a woman with a black eye on the cover and the man smiling, as if to say, "Wait till we get home, there's more where that came from!"

We all know that women can get really really drunk - they don't have to worry about being beaten up by some other drunk guy, they know that they'll have a posse of friends, both male and female, to protect them from harm if they do get drunk, and anyone who teabags them will suffer the consequences.

I'm not even going to go into why there was a study that specifically studied females and not male college students. Repeat after the feminists: Boys can never ever come to harm as a result of alcohol, period.

But apparently, fragile little strong independent womyn suffer the consequences of drinking as much or more than men, like "missing class, having unprotected sex, and undergoing changes in personality" - isn't that last one something that is pretty much a foregone conclusion at college, hell, in that age range anyway?

According to researchers, they also drink for different reasons. While men drink "out of competitiveness," says Loyola University psychology professor and study co-author Joseph LaBrie, women drink out of social pressure from male students. "A woman who plays drinking games and puts down many drinks is held in high esteem by males," says Eric R. Pedersen, another co-author of the study.

Of course, the fact that a man who can drink you under the table is held in high regard by all is left out. What else is the competitiveness about? There has to be some point to competition, and that is to be the last to fall in a drinking game.

A woman who drinks a lot is held in high regard because she's likely to be a heavy partier and more likely to sleep with you, and if you hold her in high regard other girls are going to want to emulate her and become sluttier. Its an awesome situation for a guy to be in. I bet a girl's football team member isn't welcomed at any party, no matter how many drinks she could put down.

The study analyzed the drinking habits of 105 college students — 35 males and 70 females, averaging 18.84 years in age — over a three-month period of time, monitoring every drinking event attended and quantity of alcohol consumed.

Contrary to what previous studies have claimed, the results revealed a higher drinking rate in women than in men. Sixty-four percent of the study's female students and 57 percent of the male students participated in at least one drinking game over the course of the three months. (Might be because just having a hot body can get you into a roaring party whereas you have to have a lot to offer to get into a party that's trying its hardest to have more girls than guys) Female students participated in a total of 915 drinking events, 187 of which involved drinking games, and male students participated in a total of 469 drinking events, 84 of which involved drinking games.

Researchers speculate that men and women have different motivations for engaging in drinking games. "Men do it out of competitiveness, to get the other person drunk," said study co-author, Loyola Marymount University psychology professor and Heads Up! Program Director Joseph LaBrie. "Women drink for social reasons because they want to enhance, find or build relationships."

Again with the "men do it for wrong, women do it for right" bullshit. Men do it to hurt other people, and females do it to build relationships and shit. Oh fuck off you goddamn biased researchers. This is either pure conjecture or they're listening to the shit these girls spewed forth, and we all know how likely females are to tell the truth.

However, researchers dispute the effectiveness of women playing drinking games as a means of winning respect or positive attention from men. "Women, in general, are not getting their needs met by doing what they're doing," LaBrie said.

She also thought, "I'm intelligent and these dumb blondes aren't, these bimbos are obviously dumber than a box of bricks and I'm the one who can tell them what they want and how to get their needs met. Now where did I keep that 'Become lesbian NOW propaganda...'"

Anyway, go to webshots or photobucket or facebook and search for "beirut" or "beer pong" or something. You'll find images of college girls in various stages of undress, many bending over and pushing their boobs together to distract the guys on the other side of the table with their cleavage, some flashing their tits, all in the name of winning. And these communists are saying that women don't have any power, only men are competitive, and that these sluts do it in thrall of the Patriarchy and whatnot. What absolute bullshit.

Monday, February 26, 2007

I was reading through a copy of the Oprah magazine someone left at the local laundry, and as I was browsing through it, in between the old fat naked ugly women (two instances – one in a Dove ad and one in another ad) and Dr. Phil, one name struck my eye… Suze Orman. Apparently she has a column in that rag, and I’ve heard her name before, spoken with reverence and an acknowledgment that she’s a good money advisor. I think she’s on TV too.

In any case, the first letter was a real eye opener – it was about this woman who wants to get married to her boyfriend, but can’t stand the thought that his money may not be in her clutches. So she writes to Oprah magazine about it. I’m typing it all up here, so do read it all.

Dear Suze, I am living with a man who’s worth more than a million dollars. When we started dating, I jokingly told him that if we ever got married and didn’t work out, all I wanted was a plane ticket home. Well, now we’re talking about a prenuptial agreement, and he keeps bringing up that comment. His son wants everything written down so that if his father dies or we get divorced, my children and I wouldn’t get a cent. My kids are grown up, but I need to be able to support myself – as far as money goes, I’ve got nothing to bring to the table. My boyfriend said that I could live in his home, and his son would dole out cash as I need it. What should I do?

Just look at the whore. She starts off with the biggest reason for her involvement with this man, i.e. his net worth, and dismisses the comment that probably warmed the boyfriend’s heart and made him think she’s not a gold-digger – dismisses it as a bloody joke. Now of course she is at wits’ end, thinking that she should be able to sink her claws into his estate with impunity and is shocked that he isn’t letting her. She is bringing nothing to the marriage except the promise of sex, and wants everything in return. Hell, the independent liberated woman she is, she’ll probably call the cops for marital rape if he puts the moves on her when she isn’t in the mood (read: she is thinking about how its his bank account not theirs/hers.)

Suze’s reply:This situation is no joke. With your boyfriend hiding behind your tongue-in-cheek comment for protection, I’m not sure this relationship is going to fly. What kind of man would want his wife to answer to his son for money? If your boyfriend continues to put his son’s desires ahead of yours, you need to seriously consider whether he’s the right man for you. Make it clear that you respect his right to leave everything he accumulated before marrying you to his son, but acknowledge in the prenup that assets and debts accrued during marriage would be split evenly.

I also want you and your lawyer (no mention of the would-be hubby?) to discuss setting up a life estate on the house. [Blah blah blah…]

Now if your husband balks at any of this, I think you should run. When a person can’t share his financial life, I question his ability to share his heart. The way we handle money is a manifestation of who we are inside, and how he approaches the topic signifies his love and respect for you. Without those two ingredients, you shouldn’t be considering a walk down the aisle.

Its very interesting – she also dismisses the comment as tongue-in-cheek, when the woman saw fit to include it in so many words in a one-paragraph letter to her. If the comment was that irrelevant, she wouldn’t have included it in the letter, right? The second sentence begins with the shaming language [What kind of man…not a real man that’s who] and I lost my respect for her advice at that point.

Suze also says that the prenup should allow for him leaving everything he has accumulated so far, but then says that anything accumulated during the marriage would be open season – i.e. he keeps earning, she keeps on doing whatever she was doing to have a $0 net worth until now, and surely the Nordstrom’s credit card debt will go to him and the house to her.

Her last paragraph was also cruel – she doesn’t say anything about this whore who isn’t bringing anything to the table in terms of finances and what this says about her personality and who she is, but jumps on the boyfriend for not carelessly entering into a game where the table is stacked against him in every fashion.I also did a google search on her, and found this on wikipedia…

Orman told The New York Times magazine in February 2007 that she is lesbian. Her partner of seven years is Kathy Travis, a coproducer on The Suze Orman Show. Orman has bemoaned the fact that she could not marry her partner and gain the corresponding tax advantages.

The article ends with the simpering apologist comment, "This isn't to say that there's something inherently cancer protective about the act of mopping itself, but rather that moderate physical activity, like housework, may be more effective in reducing a woman's risk of breast cancer than more rigorous, but less frequent exercise."

The comments on the article were hilarious and depressing at the same time.

The very first comment: Ok, what man conducted this study??

Sorry to say, but this doesn't make any sense. I personally know of women who have been housewives for years and they still got breast cancer. Please readers, don't get swayed by this one study. (This "health chick" is talking as if the article is telling you to drink your own pee or something. What is so bloody offensive about doing a little housework anyway? Women these days are dirty and filthy - they dress up and smell nice to bag a rich guy and because their entire sense of self-worth is based on how many glances they can get from the men around them, they're slobs when no one is looking. And she was so incensed by the idea of doing a little housework that she posted the same comment twice)

STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!!! (This is the entire comment)

Maybe the article about housework/breast cancer link was written by a man - probably one whose wife does not keep a clean houseand he wants to motivate her. Not funny buddy!!! (No, you dumb broad, only feminists do biased studies with already decided outcomes. Men would be fired if they did that. Women would just sue the company for "not taking the emotional female-centric view, discriminating against the female way of thinking" or something equally ridiculous)

I've heard it all now. I can't see anyone taking this article seriously. How stupid do you think women are? (Really really fucking stupid)

This is such a CROCK! Then how do men get breast cancer? By not doing enough housework??? I'm a very active person and I still got breast cancer. It's these kind of articles that need to be shredded BEFORE they ever make it to print! (Ah, the old standby - CENSOR CENSOR CENSOR!!! Men don't have breasts honey, I don't know what kind of confused you are, but men rarely get breast cancer. You're a bad woman, that's why you got breast cancer)

Right on Jan--had to have been conducted by men. By the way, most men DON"T do housework and precious few men ever getbreast cancer. So what gives??? (Most men don't sit on their ass all day watching Oprah and eating bonbons, waiting for the hubby darling to come home to the "Honey Do (not counted as Housework) list" either)

Does that mean that if men started to do clean the house, there would be a reduction in prostate cancer too?? (No, that means if MEN held marches and collections for prostate cancer, fewer men would die of it. If men earmarked some of that breast cancer money for their own gender, fewer men would die of it. But you're a heartless bitch who only gives a fuck about her own gender, so men suffer)

If that's the truth, why aren't men keeling over from breast cancer? (MEN DON'T HAVE TITS YOU IDIOT)

It continues, there's a shitload of "LOL this study was conducted by a man" (most studies are conducted by men you cunts, women are too stupid to do studies that aren't biased and have an outcome defined - ie feminist studies) and loads of anecdotes of the "Oh I knew this virgin and she died of AIDS so I should fuck as many men as I can while hubby pays the bills and child support" variety.

Friday, February 23, 2007

I saw this post today, and I was like, finally, a discussion where it isn't all about the women and the injustices they must suffer daily, rapists around every corner, body snatchers from Mars ready with their anal probes, sexual harassment in the workplace, one could think that EVERYTHING is out to get the poor average woman.

There are still many inequalities that exist in North America between men and women. Many say that they are "subtle" but really, they are glaring you straight in the face. Most don't notice because it is so ingrained into our society that they don't even think about it. It's also important to note that it isn't just disadvantageous to women. (Awesome start)

For example, take two children who are growing up in the same household. One is female, one is male. The male child is emotional, plays with dolls, and has tea parties. The female child likes to get dirty, is aggressive, and plays with monster trucks and other toys that are meant for boys. You'll find parental comments about the boy to be very concerned. Some might begin to wonder whether or not he is homosexual. They would most likely encourage him to play with more masculine toys, and to, well, start acting more like a boy. Comments toward the girl, on the other hand, would most likely be around the lines of a parent saying affectionately "Oh, isn't she such a tomboy?" And there would be little concern. (The poster really did an awesome job till this point. If he/she had ended this post right here, I'd have posted a kudos or something because its so fucking rare to have someone actually defend men, even if they don't get to the stage where they can blame women without the chivalry instinct kicking in. But read on...) This is probably because many see it as weak to have a feminine disposition, and the fact that she was displaying masculine traits would be more appealing. (Oh now you've gone and blown it. What in the fuck are you talking about, ya crazy ho?)

The question is, why is it more respectable to be masculine? Why are men called "pussies" or "sissies" or "girls" when they are being weak, or when they fail? Why is it that to be feminine is to be weak, dependent, and submissive? Why is it that when men show traits of femininity it is frowned upon, but in most cases when women show traits of masculinity it is encouraged? (Now would be a perfect time to say that society does not allow men to be weak but it allows girls to be strong and weak at the same time, in the blink of an eye a girl can change from strong independent boss to weak little girl in need of protection)

Just the idea that to be feminine is to be weak is something that is still a huge hinderance to equality between the sexes. Today, it is not so much the laws that we make, but the way that we think, that has an effect on equality. (Hoo boy. This was the nicest build up I've ever seen to a display of typically feminist trash)

People might say "Well women cry more than men, and that makes them more emotional and more vulnerable" but the question a person has to ask is "Well, what if society conditions them to be this way?" (Not, what if society conditions men to be stoic and crying is said to be a sign of weakness for men? Not, why does society expect men to never display any emotions?)

The thing is, gender equality is something that many in our society take for granted. I think that it is important to continue to ask questions, and to be aware that freedom and equality aren't things that have just automatically come to us. It is something that we have had to work for, and if we don't pay attention and keep asking questions, then all of the progress that we've made could be taken from us.

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

^Who in their right mind would say that they aren't a feminist? All negative connotations aside. (Especially when the alternative is to be called a misogynist)

I must say, by getting into the dictionary, feminists have their trump card right there - any debate where feminism is questioned, the evil man-haters just point to the goddamn dictionary definition and say, "So there."

Thursday, February 22, 2007

On an unrelated note to the story about the 13 year old pregnant female, I was looking at rape law in Italy, I happened across this:

18. Any person inducing a pregnancy termination without the consent of the woman shall be liable to from four to eight years' imprisonment. Consent extracted by violence or threats or under false pretences shall be deemed not to have been granted.

The same penalty shall be applicable to any person who brings about a pregnancy termination by actions designed to injure the woman.

This penalty shall be reduced by one-half if the injuries result in the hastening of childbirth.

If the woman dies as a result of the acts referred to in the first and second paragraphs, the penalty shall be from eight to 16 years' imprisonment; where very grave personal injury is the result, the penalty shall be from six to 12 years' imprisonment; where grave personal injury is the result, the latter penalty shall be reduced.

The penalties laid down under the preceding paragraphs shall be increased if the woman is under 18 years of age.

So if you lie to your girlfriend and get her to get an abortion, it is not ok. So not ok, in fact, that they'll put you in jail for it, because in the law's words, she did not give consent. I won't speak about the violence/threats bit, but I think its clear which sex has the monopoly on cajoling, threatening and acceptable violence in society.

Compare this to the rights men have - how much truth and how many lies can we expect from our women.If she lies about using birth control, that's A-OK.If she lies about not being able to get pregnant, that's A-OK.If she lies about whose baby it is, that's A-OK.If she's a fatty and lies about not being pregnant, that's A-OK.If she lies about getting an abortion and then has the baby anyway, that's A-OK.

The man can do jack-fucking-shit if the woman lies to him at any stage in the relationship, whether she's pregnant or not, whether he's the father or not.

And if you lie to her to have her get an abortion, basically putting your own two cents in, in a situation where its all about her, you will be put into prison. Wonderful. What sense of equality? What sense of balance and fairness?

Oh, and I simply love the double standard used in pregnant woman murder cases - its a life if she deems it so, its a useless parasitic bit of tissue if she deems it so, but if anyone causes it harm, its murder.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Now leaving aside the fact that it is a 13 year old we're talking about, one who is in no way even close to being an adult and is not capable of making her own decisions, the headline just screams "Men commit injustice on poor girl!!" The news article is actually completely wrong, but we'll get to that later.

Moving on to the story:

An Italian judge ordered a 13 year old girl from Torino to abort her unborn child because her parents were opposed to the baby.

Italian legislation states that a minor is not allowed to decide whether to abort or not and the 'decision' falls entirely on the guardians or parents.

The shocking story was brought into light by Italian newspaper La Stampa in which the paper reports that the girl didn't want to abort the baby but had to after the ruling. She then had to receive treatment after telling her parents she was going to attempt a suicide.

The girl got pregnant by her 15 year old boyfriend but despite this she still wanted to keep the baby.

However her parents were very angry and demanded an abortion. After the abortion the girl went into a frenzy and threatened she was going to kill herself.

"The unborn baby is still a life and I defend life whatever the situation." Severino Poletto, Archbishop of Torino told the paper.

"Society must take of this child. I certainly oppose abortions but this case allows us to reflect on the situation. We have to take a step back and ask ourselves how this could have happened to a 13 year old girl." added.

Now, Italian law, like the law in most western countries, permits teens to abort - if they don't get permission from their parents, heck even if they are simply afraid of their parents' reactions and don't want to own up to them, they can go to a judge who is forced to approve it after a cursory visit by a state provided psychologist.

So this story is completely bunk, but what's interesting are the comments where I read it - people were horrified a girl could be forced to do anything, let alone be forced to get an abortion when she wanted to birth the baby (at 13 years old - and let's not forget that a childbirth is more risky than an abortion for a healthy adult female). Waving the banner of PRO CHOICE and A WOMAN'S RIGHT and all that, people were incensed.

Also take a look at the last line, the one I bolded - "how this could have happened to a 13 year old slut" - this archfucker is in a real big hurry to shift the blame from the skank to anyone else, nooo she must be a fucking paragon of virtuosity, being a bloody knocked up bitch at the ripe old age of 13. I like how everyone is willing to blame the boyfriend, the parents, anyone except her.

Now, I think that a girl who got herself knocked up even before the age of consent isn't the brightest monkey in the zoo - if her parents are her legal guardians, they should be able to make this decision for her, since the 13 year old has life to live - like it or not, our culture doesn't let women in their most-fertile years make babies because of taboos. She will see her friends living it up, and she wouldn't be able to. Not the best way to raise a child. So I was surprised but happy to see the judge sticking up for the parents, since they would be the ones bearing the cost for a long time.

The real story comes to light in another newspaper, and it turns out that the girl actually wanted the abortion and so did her mum, and they both were afraid of their Dad so they went to the judge to get permission to abort. Of course, this slut used up tons of liras and there's no stopping her - she has apparently been a regular customer of the social services and psychologists and of course, she's a child and a girl, so they pretty much worship her.

Interview with her mom:

Valentina has improved. She is still recovering in the Queen Margherita Neuropsychiatric unit, but is slowly buying back her peace.

Reported by our newspaper and confirmed to the press by medical professionals from the Children's Hospital, the forced abortion story has gradually assumed differing outlines. Parts of this controversy will be revealed to you. Now is the time for the mother to definitively address this sad and difficult story.

"Even though Valentina was always sure that it was the right thing to do," the mother says, "obviously she was more fragile than the typical 13 year old." Not to mention skankier.

How did Valentina react when she found out she was pregnant? "Understandably she was worried. 'I'm scared, mother, I'm a day late' she said to me. When the pregnancy test came back positive, she showed me. 'I can't keep it, mother.' I soothed her by saying 'we will find someone to help us.' Then we went to get advice from Sant' Anna on the right procedure in these cases. They told us that we need to see a doctor." And that they would need the participation of a judge.

"Valentina was terrified to say anything to her father, so the guardianship judge intervened to authorize my daughter's independent decision. The judge summoned us, then spoke for a long time with Valentina about her options should she decide to keep the child. My daughter had no doubts, and the judge gave approval, as provided by law. Beyond that, my daughter has been seen, before and after, by state psychologists at the hospital."

Was that support what you expected? "Yes, always. Social services and psychologists have really taken my daughter's case to heart. She had already had a difficult past, with issues of adolescence and adoption. Problems that were exacerbated after the abortion. But not because she was remorseful or went crazy. She has not responded well to the stress and pain. We decided, and the state services agreed, that she needed admittance to the neuropsychiatric unit of Queen Margherita."

It turns out, however, that before the pregnancy was terminated, Valentina wound up in the care of the Mauriziano (rehab?) after using alcohol and drugs. "Completely unrelated, my daughter was drugged by someone in a dance club. [Yeah, whatever] I was informed the hospital had the capacity to deal with this. The abortion had been scheduled in the near future, two weeks later, but after this crisis my daughter asked us to do it early. The schedules allowed it, and that's what happened."

Aside from Valentina's condition, what is the worst thing at the moment? "I get angry because I do not understand the fact that someone has insinuated that my daughter was forced to have an abortion."

The news circulated insistently in the hospital. "I just want to know which doctor has said such things. Even if now it doesn't really matter."On the health of Valentina: "Because she can quickly get better, it is necessary that, about her and the controversy, we have silence. From everybody."

Interview with the Family Court:

"Allow me to state that no woman, under-age or of majority, can be forced to abort." Marina Ponzetto, president of the "Family Section" of the civil court of Turin, whose one of ten magistrates, Giuseppe Cocilovo, was the guardianship judge who authorized Valentina to abort at 13 years old, does not hide her worry: "To sow the seed of doubt that an abortion has been forced is to create enormous damage. Every girl must know that she will find someone [in the court] that willlisten and that can help.That's what we're there for, to aid and help girls and punish men," she added with a grimace showing teeth bloodstained from the corpse of the last man to pass through the court.

Has Judge Ponzetto read the provision regarding the case of Valentina? "Yes, and I have found it adequate and justified, perfectly tailored to what is permitted by law. From our point of view, taking into account the dramatics surrounding the case, it was a normal measure, totally in keeping with other decisions made in difficult cases regarding under-age autonomy. Because of this, at first, it was difficult for me to figure out what all the controversy was about."

What does the law require when the demand to abort arises, as has now happened, from a minor accompanied by only one of her parents? "The law considers abortion to be an exceptional measure, not to be used as simple birth control. The decision should not be hurried, and for adult women there is a waiting period of seven days in order to reflect upon their decision before undergoing the procedure. The minor must notify the parents -- notify, not seek permission from -- because father and mother can disagree in principle yet accompany the daughter in her difficult moment."When and why do the judges intervene? "In the (fortunately rare) cases in which the young person does not want to reveal to the parents her decision, or when there is fighting with the parents, or when both parents have told her no but she still wants to proceed."

Is that the way you worked on this case? "There already was a report from a doctor and psychologist. We insist on having the latter, because we derive delicate cases and want to be certain that nobody has put pressures on the girl. They had talked with the girl alone, as well as with her mother."

What is said to girls like Valentina? "First of all, we listen. It is important for us to know the situation in which the pregnancy occurred, the feelings there. Then we explain all the possibilities: it can be carried to term in a protected environment until birth, the child can be born and given up for adoption, or they can be admitted to a shelter for mothers with children. At the end, if the will has not changed, the judge only authorizes to grant [the girl] autonomy in her decision."

Have you ever denied such authorization? "Sure, yes. And those cases are just as delicate. In 2003, right here in Turin, against an authorization that had not even been denied by the judge but only sent back in order to get more in-depth reports from social services, a tragedy occurred: the young fiance of a girl committed suicide. As you can easily understand, these are not decisions to be made with a light heart."

I'm still pissed that the slut was not lectured or something, let alone have an entire army of people just waiting to get the fetus sucked out of her like a tumor and nobody even once mentioned anything negative. Hell, if you go ask them right now, they'll be all praise for wonderful, brave soul who got pregnant at the ripe old age of 13.

Monday, February 19, 2007

And not just through any wall - the outside wall of a parking garage - on the second floor!! Hahaha, this is awesome. Hilarious how she managed to jam on the gas so hard that she broke through the wall.

Jokes about female drivers are quite politically incorrect, but it has to be true that they are more likely to be scatterbrained... err multitasking while driving a car and are consequently less likely to have all their wits about them to concentrate on the task of keeping the car on the road.

Insurance is also such a big scam - if women were charged more for the same reasons that insurance companies claim they need to charge men more, there would be rallies, million soccer mom marches, a day to commemorate the first woman to challenge the insurance companies and win millions, et cetera ad nauseum. But because men are charged more, we're told to suck it up, that the insurance companies have very good reasons for charging us more. Here, again, the assumption of women = good, men = bad leaves its black mark. Its clear that even though men drive more miles, they have fewer accidents per mile, and they obviously get more tickets and all that as well.

Of course, feminists don't have a problem with generalizing based on sex when its females benefitting from the generalizations, no siree.

I've been thinking about this topic since I first got into the Men's Movement and started reading all the blogs, forums and books on it. Especially Warren Farrell's stuff - he focuses on relationships quite a bit in his books, and I couldn't help but keep thinking about my own relationship while reading his books. Not only my current relationship, but previous ones - how I got the girl, how I persuaded her, how I patriarchally oppressed her into kissing, making out and fucking, all of that good stuff. Especially the getting the girl part. For a while I used to feel that as I get in a stronger position every day as I grow richer and more attractive, I can have my pick of women without ever needing to marry.

But now, I don't know. Will I even want to go on a date where I'm expected to systematically patriarchally oppress the poor woman by opening her car door, paying her compliments, paying for the dinner, and ensuring she has a great time? I was a different man when I was wooing my honey, and I don't know what lengths I'd go to for some pussy if I needed to do it all over again. A good woman is worth her weight in gold, but mining is such hazardous work, you have to question whether its worth it, whether its worth the risk of digging up fool's gold and suffering as a result of it.

However, I'll come out front and say it - I think that Men's Rights Activism is as good for a relationship as Feminism is to one.

That is to say, being an MRA will ensure that you are fully equipped to look at your relationship dispassionately and view all the intricacies in a new light, one that could be more jaundiced.

Now, I certainly won't pretend that I can speak for everyone. I know tons of MRA's who have healthy and happy relationships, some with their significant others sharing in their activism. They have found a way to make their relationship work - they've taken the MRA position but found a way to make it work with their relationship.

At the same time, I don't think my relationship is on the rocks or anything. I think my girlfriend is wonderful, our relationship is great, and I recognize that for most men, you have to have two personalities to start and maintain a relationship.

Most women out there are not happy with the MRA message - maybe they have misconceptions about it, maybe they think that men are supposed to be the load-bearing asses of society, maybe they think that women are superior. Whatever the case, most women are extremely happy with feminism, and see Men's Rights Activism as hurting them. And unlike men, they aren't used to hurting.

While we were having a heart-to-heart talk, she said that she doesn't think MRActivism is good for me - she said its not good to be in either extreme - not an MRA (of course she didn't use that word) and not a feminist.

And I couldn't help but agree. I told her that what we talk about are areas where men are discriminated against, and she was OK with that.

One thing that came to me in a brainwave was that if you have the same mistrust of women that feminists do of men, you really are no better off than the feminists.

I told her that I'm trusting her and this proves that I'm not completely bonkers. I told her that just as she trusts me not to rape her or beat her up (I'm bigger and stronger), I trust her not to falsely accuse me of rape or domestic violence - in this way we have a balance. I don't know how much of that got through to her, but it made perfect sense to me.

To me, not trusting any woman would be like a feminist not trusting men and turning into a bitter old spinster femhag.

Now, of course I'm glossing over a few bits. The above statement assumes that the femhag actually really believes in the feminist dogma, which most of the famous ones don't, we've seen how they marry up, have children and "give up their careers" and all that.

I'm also glossing over the fact that false rape accusations and using domestic abuse as a pawn to get what you want is millions of times more acceptable than actual rape or actual man-on-woman domestic violence.

And of course, feminism is based on lies where men's rights activism seeks to expose the truth.

Notwithstanding all that, I still think that relationships are fraught with danger when coupled with men's rights activism or feminism.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

EDEN PRARIE, MN — After having won three consecutive ping-pong matches by increasingly wide margins Saturday, David Richter, 27, adjusted the rules in favor of girlfriend Amy Lindon, 28, to avoid another lopsided victory. "I didn't want her to feel bad, and I actually didn't even want to beat her by so many points anymore," said Richter, who let Lindon hit the ball even if it bounced twice on her side, did not penalize her for serving illegally, and on one occasion tripled her overall score. "Toward the end, I was giving her points just for swinging the paddle in the direction of the ball." Richter won 21-7.

Of course, it doesn't apply only to girlfriends, pretty much any girl, as long as she's not a total hambeast or dworkin gets the benefit of these rules, and they then use their ill-gotten victories to gloat over men. The fact is that women just don't know how to lose - they will whine, scream, deny sex if they are in a position to do so, threaten to get you into trouble - anything to make sure that you don't treat them equally - like you would treat a man. Hell, anyone with a sibling will know what I'm talking about - sisters have total impunity to hit, irritate and be a downright pain in the ass, but as soon as you raise a hand in defence or offence, oh boy you're gonna get it. Dear Sis will put on her sweetest face, turn on the waterworks and get you into as much trouble as she can. And you can't hold a grudge either, because obviously it will backfire on you with your parents telling you to love your sister and treat her nicely.

Just like any other group of females in the world, there is a close bond between daughter and mother - assume a typical family with a father, mother, son and daughter - the mother is home all day and gets a lot of quality time with the daughter, while the father is out working and being away from his family, paying for all the luxuries the family takes for granted. Add in the natural tendency of women to collaborate with each other and exclude men, and you have the lone male feeling very alone and isolated.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Well, it turns out me and my honey buns had a little "tiff" yesterday. It started with her calling me a couple of times after lunch and asking what I was planning for the evening, and saying she wanted to "do something." Now, of course it came down to me thinking of stuff for her and taking her there (yep, driving too) and I didn't want to do that, especially for a "holiday" I consider totally made up and consumeristic. So I told her to think of something, and when she didn't want to do that, told her we weren't doing anything and told her why.

HOO BOY. She just about unleashed the fucking fury.

She was mad at me the whole evening, not talking to me, crying her eyes out in the closet when that didn't work, the whole nine yards. I had to make up, and as it always is, we just have different priorities - she wants to do something, anything, on the specific date, and I usually don't. She said I never want to celebrate anything, and I told her that I want to do it on my terms - the money that would go on that specific date could be used for something else, say a weekend trip to Florida. She said she doesn't necessarily want to spend money, but wants the day to be special. And handed me the bag, essentially saying "And its your job to make it special."

Well anyway, we made up and she confessed a few more secrets of her own (always happens when a girl cries and you comfort her, I guess they feel more open when they're vulnerable) and she didn't have to sleep on the couch after all.

Oh and I called my folks and my Mom was gushing about the expensive jewelry set my Dad gave her.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Today is Valentine's Day, and while it most certainly is overcommercialized and is too much about wealth transfer via gifts to the female sex, I and my girlfriend like to celebrate it the old-fashioned way - via expressing our love for each other. So we give each other gifts, instead of it being a one-way mercenary exchange of sex for gifts.

So today, I gave her this heart and a bar of Almond Joy chocolate (Bounty for you UK folks). She loved it, as you can tell.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Of course I'm being facetious when I use the word "ladies" here. We all know there are very few ladies existing in today's world, hell I'm beginning to think that being a lady was a privilege if it meant having gentlemen give up their lives for you.

Anyway, on to the story. This is a heartwarming tale about a poor poor old mother and her three daughters.

Here's something for ya chivalrists - The Caring Sex indeed! This bitch divorced her daughters' father, and promptly turned into a complete and total psychopath.

The girls were shut away from the outside world, existing in almost complete darkness, playing only with mice and communicating in their own language.

When they were discovered, their home in a smart, upper middle-class suburb had no running water and was filled with waste and excrement a metre high. The floor was corroded by mice urine.

The case has stunned Austria, still reeling from the Natascha Kampusch kidnapping, and the authorities were struggling last night to explain how such a horror story could have gone unnoticed.

The girls’ ordeal was apparently sparked by their parents’ divorce, after which their mother, a 53-year-old lawyer, suffered a breakdown. But she won custody of the girls — then aged 7, 11 and 13 — and withdrew them from school, claiming that she would give them private tuition at home.

Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times.

The girls, Viktoria, Katharina and Elisabeth, were rescued only when police broke into the house after a neighbour, who had reported his suspicions several times, threatened a local council official with a lawsuit.

Although that was in October 2005, and the three have been in a specialised therapy centre since, the scandal was only revealed at the weekend.

The mother is now being held in a special remand prison branch for the mentally unstable. She will appear in court in a few weeks on charges of grievous bodily harm and torture, and is facing between five months and five years in prison.

She had ensured that the blinds were constantly shut, and that all but one light bulb had been removed in the house. When they were released, the three victims had white skin and could not endure exposure to natural light.

Authorities are now under fire for failing to have intervened sooner, despite repeated complaints by neighbours in the well-to-do Poestlingberg.

The mother was said to have been summoned to court nine times during the seven years after complaints by the father and neighbours, but officials never found a reason to investigate the case more closely.

Waltraud Kubelka, a therapist who is now treating the three girls, said that their psycho-social and physical development was “catastrophic”.

“The oldest one is doing very badly and has no prospects of recovery. She was severely undernourished and practically anorexic after her release. The two younger ones will need years to come to terms with their horrific childhood.

“In the first weeks after their release they were hiding under a bench in the kitchen [in the therapy centre] because that was the darkest spot. They could not endure light . . . they had not felt sunlight or fresh air for years.”

It is believed that the children had contact only with their mother during the seven years of captivity and, as a consequence, developed an almost unintelligible language of their own, described as a “singing-like” form of German.

Even after a year of therapy the oldest daughter, Elisabeth, now 21, is said to be so disturbed that she stands only on one foot for long periods staring at the floor. She often bursts into tears.

She and her two sisters also reportedly finish all sentences with the word “but”.

But according to her carers, the youngest of the three, Viktoria, could soon be discharged from therapy to join her father, who now is in constant contact with his daughters.

A council official said that authorities had had no knowledge of the “truly catastrophic” conditions.

The mother’s legal training and knowledge of the law has reportedly enabled her to postpone the trial. The case will he heard in front of a court in Klagenfurt in the next weeks, as both she and her husband are well known in the legal community of Linz.

Natascha Kampusch was held for eight years by Wolfgang Priklopil, before escaping. Priklopil snatched her on her way to school when she was ten and kept her captive in a subterranean dungeon under his house near Vienna for eight years.

Professor Max Friedrich, a child psychiatrist who treated Ms Kampusch, said that the two cases should not be compared.

“This is entirely different, when the mother herself is the captor. It is tragic that the one person that commands full trust is misguided in that way. I do not envy their therapists.”

Holy shit, this happened in 2005, and they're just letting the world know now? Do they have a Propaganda office too? How about a Ministry of Truth?? With governments like these, who needs nazis? Really?

This is what happens when man-hating takes hold of whole branches of government and doesn't let go - innocent children suffer, and yes in this case they are female, which should garner even more sympathy from the MSM and society in general. And yes, just like every other case, the mother held the keys - I bet if the father had tried to force his way in, he'd have been booked for longer than five years easy.

Notice how they slipped in that excuse for the woman's behavior - she brokedown after the divorce which she most likely initiated and now faces such little punishment as to be inconsequential. Of course people will say, well she's female, she's not a risk or anything, right guys if she is actually held accountable for this. In either case, look for lots of excuses in the media.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Hahah, this is awesome, so this California cop pulls over a stripper and apparently gets a handjob from her and ejaculates on her, and he gets acquitted of whatever charges they threw at him. I love it!

No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.

When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”

It wasn’t a surprise that Stokke put the woman and her part-time occupation on trial. In his opening argument, he made it The Good Cop versus The Slutty Stripper. He pointed out that she’d once had a violent fight with a boyfriend in San Diego. He mocked her inability to keep a driver’s license. He accused her of purposefully “weakening” Park so that he became “a man,” not a cop during the traffic stop. He called her a liar angling for easy lawsuit cash. He called her a whore without saying the word.

“You dance around a pole, don’t you?” Stokke asked.

Superior Court Judge William Evans ruled the question irrelevant.

Stokke saw he was scoring points with the jury.

“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked.

“No,” said Lucy before the judge interrupted.

“You do the dancing to get men to do what you what them to do,” said Stokke. “And the same thing happened out there on that highway [in Laguna Beach]. You wanted [Park] to take some sex!”

Lucy said, “No sir,” the sex wasn’t consensual. Stokke—usually a mellow fellow with a nasally, monotone voice—gripped his fists, stood upright, clenched his jaws and then thundered, “You had a buzz on [that night], didn’t you?”

As if watching a volley in tennis, the heads of the male-dominated jury spun from Stokke back to Lucy, who sat in the witness box. She said no, but it was hopeless. Jurors stared at her without a hint of sympathy.

In his closing argument, Stokke pounced. He called Lucy one of those “girls who have learned the art of the tease, getting what they want . . . they’ve learned to separate men from their money.”

This man deserves a medal! Not the cop, the defense lawyer! We need more of these guys on our side.

Aside from that, notice the highlighting of the jury composition in the article... "A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop."

I was going through the Eternal Bachelor, and reading the comments on A Trio of Articles, I came across a comment by Anonymous age 64, in which he says that:

is why I have always taken issue with those men who claim that you have a better chance when marrying foreign women.

don't.

Sure you do, but you gotta' be smarter than a rock. Using the example of two dummies who married women from two of the most screwed up nations in the world tells us nothing about women in other countries.

Also, just because the further you get from the English speaking and European countries your odds go up, doesn't mean you can simply marry the first attractive woman you see and expect success. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MOST MEN DO.

And, yes, if you marry women from very poor nations and bring them to the States, there is a good chance you are marrying a woman because she wants her papers.

This got me thinking... One area where men get a lot of schtick is that they are very sex minded, or to put it less politely, complete horn dogs. Men have only one thing on their mind, they only think about one thing, millions of fathers warn their daughters that their boyfriend is after only one thing, etc etc.

Men are hard-wired for lots of hot sex with hot bitches.

Men as a whole go through a lot of vilification for the simple fact that they need sex. Its like scolding a dog for panting. Those who understand dogs know that they don't do it to be rude, they do it because they need to - if they don't pant, they will die of heat stroke. Men don't die because of a lack of sex, but it sure as hell makes life less worth living. And no woman is going to shame me into saying otherwise. Wanting sex does not make you shallow. Wanting sex with a beautiful, attractive, pretty, cute woman does not make you shallow. It is instinct. Pure and simple. And no, we are not "above" it just because of the fact that we live in brick houses and have lazy pets which do nothing but lounge about all day.

The problem is that like so many other things, the sex issue has also been female-normalized. So a female sex drive (that is to say easily controllable or negligible to an outside point of view) is considered normal, whereas a male sex drive, which is more obvious and weighs more heavily on the brain of the man, is considered abnormal. Men think about sex more often because of the simple fact that if they collectively didn't, the species would die out. We don't make a conscious decision, but the good old instincts and hard-wiring come into play here.

I know this is a tangent and not really related to anonymous's comment, but I'm going to leave it up there since that's what started me off.

I went to get my hair cut today - it was getting kinda unruly, and I had a coupon to use which was expiring today, so after work I went down to the salon. When I got there, there was one other guy in line, and I was after him. He was a pretty normal-looking fellow, nothing weird about his appearance. He was reading a magazine so I didn't make eye contact or say hi or anything.

Well, he gets called and he gets up and sits in the barber's chair. He starts talking to the stylist and I can hear snatches of conversation - apparently he just got divorced, his wife initiated it, she took the kids, and she got the house and the cars. He was stuck with the debt. All of this was overheard. He was telling her that the law is unfair, that things really need to be different and my heart went out to him. He and the millions like him is the reason I'm writing this blog.

Anyway, I went up to the counter and picked up a business card for the salon and wrote down three websites for him to check out.

My turn came, and as I got up, I went up to his chair and gave him the card. I said I couldn't help but overhear about his situation, and that he is not alone. He was a little shocked by this weirdo who had come out of nowhere to hand him a business card, but he took it and after reading it was talking about it to the stylist, and I heard well at least I won't feel like I'm alone. When he was leaving, he shouted me a thanks.

Hey dude, if you're reading this, take care, keep your chin up and fight for your kids and your property if there is any fight left to be fought. And no, a prenup won't do shit. Stay unmarried, marriage has nothing to offer us men today.

In the end, we're all in this together - when the government has no qualms in dreaming up all-new misandric laws every day that label all men as potential rapists, abusers and all-around criminals while making women exempt, we can't help but band together.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

After I posted my article about Indian women, Davout felt he had to clarify his position. I mostly agree with him in that there are greater controls on Indian women in India than here, but (as he said) it is still no paradise. The same things that have made misandry acceptable in the US and other western countries are hard at work in India and other developing nations. Contrary to popular opinion, chivalry is not just an old-world European thing - it is very much alive pretty much everywhere in the world. Indian men (and women) also consider women to be frail creatures deserving of protection from the big bad world.

India is very susceptible to foreign influence - Indians have a deep-seated love of anything foreign/western, whether that is McDonald's, Sony, Ralph Lauren, or whatever. I don't think there is any other country where English is not the national language but is so widely used - from the labelling on stuff at the supermarket to storefront signs.

So anyway, the western influence is also showing up in the form of misandric laws - and these are hardcore man-hating laws put forth by blatantly sexist people in government, not like here where there is at least some gender neutrality in spirit, if not in practice.

India is set to soon become a feminist's wet dream, and while there is some resistance to the IPC 498a law, more laws similar to this one are surely coming, now that the precedent has been set.

We've recently been getting a few trolls here and there in the MRA blogging circle, in addition to the usual feminists / female shit-stirrers who either post as anonymous or take a male name.

But I've seen that most bloggers are very adamant about outing trolls as quickly as possible. Which is great, and awesome. But then you can see that most feminist blogs aren't so watchful about trolls on their sites. Here, I define a troll as someone who says he agrees with your POV but either makes his online persona completely hateful like adorning his profile with photos of Hitler or a convicted bomber, or takes your position and runs with it, making fun of it in the process.

Feminists are a lot less watchful of man-hating than MRA's are of female-hating.

Monday, February 05, 2007

I came across "Puppy Love" today, a 1933 Disney animated short. I saw it via Comcast's website, and can't, for the life of me, find it anywhere else, including Youtube, Google Video and Metacafe. I tried to rip it from the Disney website, but they've wrapped the video in flash, so I can't do that either. Bastards.

Anyway, here's an explanation of the cartoon short. When I saw Minnie's reaction to the bone in the candy box, I thought, how typical. She gets angry, he gets afraid, now she'll probably kick him in the nuts and boil his dog alive.

But then Mickey's reaction surprised me - he got angry after a few seconds of Minnie's tirade, and angrily left the house, slamming the door and the fence, which naturally caused everything to collapse. Even Mickey's dog got in on the action, growled menacingly at Fifi and followed his master. My connection timed out at that point and I don't feel like wading through the video again, so I'll leave it at that. It sure was a refreshing change from the usual male-bashing though.

Can you imagine Raymond getting angry at his bitchy wife and giving her a peace of his mind in 2007? That would be the day... maybe then everyone really would love Raymond and his backbone! snigger

As I was going through a few of my favorite blogs, I saw this comment. This was pretty long ago - I had saved the comment and was procrastinating putting up an article about it. But something happened this weekend that made me decide to write about it pronto.

Davout said at 9:39PM...

I'm not sure where the anonymous commenter is from but, in my view, India might be a good place to go. Even though Feminism has caught on there, men have wised up to it pretty quickly. I have to believe that radical feminism is a parasite that feeds on an already existing advanced existing infrastructure. Such a creation is largely absent throughout most of India.

Also, there isn't a large enough critical mass of lazy upper class wives to nag their husbands into getting the ball of radical feminism rolling.

Further, the predominant joint family system distributes the wife's control over the family because the mother-in-law also wants to control the situation. The 'divide and conquer' analogy works in favor of men. It would be interesting to see a study done to investigate if an increase in the number of joint families in a given area correlates with an increase in social conservative attitudes there and vice versa. It is to the great detriment of modern Western white and black families that they strive desperately to kick their kids out before 18 and wash their hands of anything to do with the kids' marriage or the in-laws. This is why the feminists in India are trying desperately to break the joint family system.

The western coastal regions of India (in Maharashtra and Kerala) are extremely beautiful. It is inadvisable to go to the east coast (Calcutta etc.) especially as the Communist Party of India has held sway in there for 40 odd years.

India is a reasonable place to head to, although you probably have to be allergy free and not disease prone. The cost of living there, ona average, is much cheaper than that in Canada, from what I've heard. The economy is poised to boom, big time, and one might as well surf the surging wave if no better alternative exists.

Anyway, that's my two cents on where 'out' might be.

So, what happened? Well, I've been living with an Indian couple for the past month or so. I liked them to begin with, although the woman was a major red flag, especially when she said "All boys are the same, they're stupid and they need women to help them grow up properly." Yup, that's what she said.

So anyway, last weekend I came home for lunch and saw that the husband was packing up stuff from their room. I thought nothing of it, they were here on a very short-term basis and were going to move out soon. I thought they were finally moving out.

I eat my lunch, leave and I guess he packed up his stuff and left. When I come home in the evening, I see some stuff still there, and wonder why they left what they did.

Later on, I receive a call from a frantic friend of the couple, asking me to let him in. I let him in, and he says that we have to leave (pointing at me and my girlfriend). He says that the police is coming because the husband beat his wife. I'm shocked, because he genuinely didn't seem like the kind of guy who would beat his wife, and thanks to my background, I was extremely skeptical of the whole beating up his wife thing.

We talked, a few more friends came along, and pretty much EVERYONE started dogpiling on the husband. He was a psycho, he was a demon, he was a coward. One macho posturing asshole said "I'm glad he isn't here, otherwise he'd have to answer to me instead of his woman." Yeah whatever Jackass, good job jumping to conclusions. These friends of the couple's were all Indian.

Anyway, me and my girlfriend went out and talked about the whole thing. My girl, bless her soul, kept telling me how unfair it was that she called the cops, that they are husband and wife, they should work out their differences without calling the cops. I've told her what a big deal it is to call 911 and accuse domestic violence here, that it would certainly lead to me going to jail and no hope of ever reconciling. Hey, better she hear it from me than her friends at a time when she is pissed at me, right? I told her that I thought it was a lie, that the wife was evil and unstable and that's why she must have called.

So we returned home, and the news was that the police had gone to the house where the wife and her friend was staying, apparently her friend had called the police because she was afraid of the husband coming over. See, this is why you should NEVER trust women. The sweetest girl could have the bitchiest fat lesbian dyke friend, who hates men and women are creatures very sensitive to suggestion. Its no coincidence that 99% of advertisements are targeted to women and children.

So the end result was that the husband apparently ran to Chicago, the wife is living with her friend, and we are still unaware of what exactly went on. Of course, that doesn't stop all the conjecture and speculation and male-hating, does it. No innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion.

Oh, and India is no paradise. The women coming out of there have fire in their belly and man-hating laws behind them.